Hello all, A question came up recently on the tex.sx site about ConTeXt licensing: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/12431/using-context-commercially I have a feeling I've seen something similar elsewhere recently, but cannot be sure where. This question seems to require an 'official' response, as things do seem a little confusing (at least to me). I'm happy to post something as a reply to the question if I know what the position is (or indeed if it is "read what we've put and go with it".) -- Joseph Wright
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, Joseph Wright wrote:
Hello all,
A question came up recently on the tex.sx site about ConTeXt licensing:
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/12431/using-context-commercially
I have a feeling I've seen something similar elsewhere recently, but cannot be sure where.
Perhaps: http://tex.stackexchange.com/posts/3507/revisions Aditya
2011/3/1 Joseph Wright
This question seems to require an 'official' response, as things do seem a little confusing (at least to me). I'm happy to post something as a
You won't get a more "official" response than http://www.pragma-ade.com/general/manuals/mreadme.pdf ". . . and don’t bother discussing licence issues and related things with us for the mere sake of discussing licence stuff." If someone wants to use ConTeXt commercially I advise her to contact Pragma ADE, if only to get a support contract (if they offer such a thing). Best Martin
You won't get a more "official" response than http://www.pragma-ade.com/general/manuals/mreadme.pdf
". . . and don’t bother discussing licence issues and related things with us for the mere sake of discussing licence stuff."
If someone wants to use ConTeXt commercially I advise her to contact Pragma ADE, if only to get a support contract (if they offer such a thing).
http://www.pragma-ade.com/general/manuals/mreadme.pdf In the readme above we can read on page 2 (about the code it self): "The program code (i.e. anything not under the /doc subtree) is distributed under the Creative Commons GNU GPL" and "The GNU General Public License is a Free Software license. Like any Free Software license, it grants to you the four following freedoms: The freedom to run the program for any purpose." So I don't really see any issues about using Context commercially, as long as someone is not trying to create a new system named "MyOwnTex" that is based on Context, and trying to distribute it without obeying Context's license. That's what it's told on the end of page 2 and beginning of page 3 of the readme: "If you modify your copy or copies of the program or any portion of it, or develop a program based upon it, you may distribute the resulting work provided you do so under the GNU General Public License. Any translation of the GNU General Public License must be accompanied by the GNU General Public License." As someone said the Docs (page 4 of the readme) are shared with a different, noncommercial license. Miguel Queirós
On 1 mrt. 2011, at 22:37, Joseph Wright
Hello all,
A question came up recently on the tex.sx site about ConTeXt licensing:
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/12431/using-context-commercially
I have a feeling I've seen something similar elsewhere recently, but cannot be sure where.
This question seems to require an 'official' response, as things do seem a little confusing (at least to me). I'm happy to post something as a reply to the question if I know what the position is (or indeed if it is "read what we've put and go with it".)
I will reply on tex.sx in an hour or two (have to travel first) Best wishes, Taco
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 22:37, Joseph Wright wrote:
Hello all,
A question came up recently on the tex.sx site about ConTeXt licensing:
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/12431/using-context-commercially
I really like the particular answer pointing to bugroff licence: http://www.reocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5947/bugroff.html Mojca
On Wednesday 02 of March 2011 11:30:03 Mojca Miklavec wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 22:37, Joseph Wright wrote:
Hello all,
A question came up recently on the tex.sx site about ConTeXt licensing:
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/12431/using-context-commercially
I really like the particular answer pointing to bugroff licence: http://www.reocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5947/bugroff.html
If I was a touchy fellow I'd feel offended by it, but being a well mannered and weathered guy, I'll just let the bugger pass me by :P Also it shows the author doesn't know much about how laws are made and what's the point of them. That being said, I do think that much of the legal, economic and social system (incl. copyright, patents) needs to change quite a bit. But that'd be off topic now. *On topic* I'd also _very_ much like to see what's up with ConTeXt licensing. From what it seems it looks like TeX Live is relicensing ConTeXt in its distribution. And both helping the Gentoo Licensing team and being Deputy Legal Coordinator of the FSFE, that's something that is my concern. cheers, Matija -- gsm: +386 41 849 552 www: http://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suklje@gabbler.org
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:40, Matija Šuklje wrote:
*On topic* I'd also _very_ much like to see what's up with ConTeXt licensing. From what it seems it looks like TeX Live is relicensing ConTeXt in its distribution. And both helping the Gentoo Licensing team and being Deputy Legal Coordinator of the FSFE, that's something that is my concern.
If you volunteer some time, I invite you to lunch to help me/us figure out what to do with licence of hyph-utf8 (both package itself and included patterns). Or dinner before/after foss meeting tomorrow ... Targeting TeX Live 2011 if possible ... Mojca
2011/3/2 Mojca Miklavec
I really like the particular answer pointing to bugroff licence: http://www.reocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5947/bugroff.html
It's a nice joke, but for practical purposes a one-clause BSD license allows the same freedoms, but is legally clear. Best Martin
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:41:58AM +0100, Martin Schröder wrote:
2011/3/2 Mojca Miklavec
: I really like the particular answer pointing to bugroff licence: http://www.reocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5947/bugroff.html
It's a nice joke, but for practical purposes a one-clause BSD license allows the same freedoms, but is legally clear.
I was about to say that, though I'm pro strong copyleft (AKA GPL when fits) myself, though I highly doubt, for practical reasons ;), that any one can take a BSD licensed ConTeXt and make a closed source derivative with any substantial improvement. Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Egyptian Arab
2011/3/2 Khaled Hosny
I was about to say that, though I'm pro strong copyleft (AKA GPL when fits) myself, though I highly doubt, for practical reasons ;), that any one can take a BSD licensed ConTeXt and make a closed source derivative with any substantial improvement.
That may be legally possible. But who wants to support such a beast? Seriously: Using ConTeXt mkIV without the possibility of support by Hans et.al. is a desaster waiting to happen. Best Martin
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 12:08:35PM +0100, Martin Schröder wrote:
2011/3/2 Khaled Hosny
: I was about to say that, though I'm pro strong copyleft (AKA GPL when fits) myself, though I highly doubt, for practical reasons ;), that any one can take a BSD licensed ConTeXt and make a closed source derivative with any substantial improvement.
That may be legally possible. But who wants to support such a beast? Seriously: Using ConTeXt mkIV without the possibility of support by Hans et.al. is a desaster waiting to happen.
That what I meant. Actually if someone succeeds doing that, it is well earned money :p Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Egyptian Arab
Hi, On 03/02/11 11:41, Martin Schröder wrote:
It's a nice joke, but for practical purposes a one-clause BSD license allows the same freedoms, but is legally clear.
Same for me, but in collaborative works, that is usually not doable. Once a single line of a project is GPL-ed, all of it has to be. Anyway, here is what I wrote: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/12431/using-context-commercially I am talking for Hans there, but I believe I am allowed to. Hans, if you disagree with anything I wrote, please tell me and I will correct the answer and apologize. Best wishes, Taco
On 2-3-2011 12:10, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Hi,
On 03/02/11 11:41, Martin Schröder wrote:
It's a nice joke, but for practical purposes a one-clause BSD license allows the same freedoms, but is legally clear.
Same for me, but in collaborative works, that is usually not doable. Once a single line of a project is GPL-ed, all of it has to be.
Anyway, here is what I wrote:
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/12431/using-context-commercially
I am talking for Hans there, but I believe I am allowed to. Hans, if you disagree with anything I wrote, please tell me and I will correct the answer and apologize.
sounds ok to me, Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
participants (9)
-
Aditya Mahajan
-
Hans Hagen
-
Joseph Wright
-
Khaled Hosny
-
Martin Schröder
-
Matija Šuklje
-
Miguel Queiros
-
Mojca Miklavec
-
Taco Hoekwater